From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE,
	SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC16BC6B
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAEoV8kZC+VyvkGdsb2JhbACCOTeLIQEBAQEHBAQHGwc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.20,278,1186351200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="16478790"
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2007 15:42:03 +0200
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so372479ugc
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        bh=LCVjRXI7O4/Du4yOOAHH5hImyo+X93kp4UYYEAAx8JA=;
        b=ZtODiHA0QzSC7XZMVMw4NZIRmbkRcoiKB/P810Qi92cWZyW3QqNVC8AClbrVqARN7x3KEp//04a/g/sGlWR8UDwM+SGT3hSBuos9RJkX3TWIPKt7OHDtJcpl3AaME6asB/dbOf5gWaGPKDCjo0WdWRSIaCZDyJOR6hQLzrRrlZI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=b+eSVU4okG7kVPG8n5aPvfq0t4KyfXenk2B91pBMqXKL1lSB3Ld+vDZpeYZSPGpT/HpCJ+D2xGCo/lvn1/kNIM5Us6BE2FkHur5SLQht0oTcUIq1I1ibW7EZ+sMZbHb3euosWRke+5+GWVcXc3WW/vtlLbU0WL/Y57gn8p8CvfI=
Received: by 10.66.244.20 with SMTP id r20mr3212589ugh.1190295722318;
        Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.249.6 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d8be5ae20709200642s598b5570l6ebd5be1a2b6ce0f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:42:02 -0400
From: "Ashish Agarwal" <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Having '<<', why to use '|>' ?
In-Reply-To: <20070919214938.76e4fa8b@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_30097_22218852.1190295722300"
References: <20070917163617.0e6e0e7c@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20070918085310.GB12115@localhost>
	 <20070918161246.1ff37e29@localhost.localdomain>
	 <200709181742.27747.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
	 <20070919214938.76e4fa8b@localhost.localdomain>
X-Spam: no; 0.00; experimented:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 notation:01 experimented:01 ocaml:01 camlp:01 notation:01 1975:98 caml-list:01 useful:09 useful:09 previous:10 previous:10 composition:12 

------=_Part_30097_22218852.1190295722300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>   It would be useful that experimented OCaml people suggest a replacement
for the heavily used composition operator ( << ) that is now reserved for
camlp4...

After reading all your posts and all previous posts I could find, I've
started using (<--) and (-->), but I also wish there was an agreed upon
notation for this. I have no confidence that my choices are good.

------=_Part_30097_22218852.1190295722300
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<span>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;It would be useful that experimented OCaml people suggest
a replacement for the heavily used composition operator ( &lt;&lt; )
that is now reserved for camlp4...<br><br>
After reading all your posts and all previous posts I could find, I&#39;ve
started using (&lt;--) and (--&gt;), but I also wish there was an agreed upon notation for this. I have no confidence that my choices are good.</span><br>

------=_Part_30097_22218852.1190295722300--